alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NCATS CTSA UM1 Review Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         February 20, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1066, Bethesda, MD 20892,  (301) 435-0813,                         *henriquv@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 15, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-27962 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
December 9, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AARON FRANK DOMANGUEX, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00122-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
316(b) RULE

TELEPHONE LOG

Name of Caller: John Sunda, Tetra Tech

Date: May 24, 2012

Company Name: Ovivo (formerly Eimco)

Person Contacted: Trent Gathright

Title: Sales Manager

Telephone #: 281-480-7955

Email: trent.gathright@ovivowater.com

Called to inquire about the relative costs between conventional through flow traveling screens 

and similar screens with modified Ristroph features. Ovivo (formerly Eimco) is an equipment 

vendor for traveling screens and other technologies.

Assuming that the mesh size is the same (e.g., 3/8 inch coarse mesh), then the difference in costs 

will be roughly 24% to 26% for screens where the original debris return trough is on the 

downstream (descending) side of the screen. If the original debris return trough is on the 

upstream (ascending) side, then a taller screen will be necessary and the difference in costs will 

be around 30%. Mr. Gathright said about 30% to 45% of existing screens have the debris trough 

on the upstream side. These costs apply to the traveling screen and adjacent fish return and 

debris troughs and do not include the combined fish return leading away from the screens or 

additional spray washwater pumps which are the responsibility of the owners.
Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements listed below of Gehl Company of our report dated February 27, 2002
relating to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 27, 2002
relating to the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

     1.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-38392)

     2.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-02195)

     3.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-04017)

     4.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-36102)



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 8, 2002
#### Cassell v. Cassell

19027

2/24/98

Affirmed
# C_2018301EN.01004101.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/41

---

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-400/18)

(2018/C 301/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2017 C 277, p. 51.

---
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00298 - CV IN RE JAMES HENRY GIBSO N, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### August 5 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Relator, James Henry Gibson , has filed a petition for writ of mandamus by which he seeks the issuance of a writ ordering the respondent, the Honorable Dan L. Schaap , Judge of the 4 7 th Dis trict Court of Randall County, Texas, to vacate j udgment s he enter ed in trial court cause numbers 24276A and 24329A . By his petition, Gibson presents issues of insufficiency of the evidence, denial of counsel at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we will dismiss Gibson ’s petition. Following Gibson ’s conviction s and sentenc ing in trial court cause numbers 24276A and 24329A , he perfected appeal to this Court. After reviewing issues of sufficiency of the evidence, this Court found no reve rsible error and affirmed th e2

judgment of the trial court. See Gibson v. State , No s . 07 - 13 - 00 412 - CR, 07 - 13 - 00413 - CR, 20 14 Tex. App. LEXIS 9438 , at *1 9 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Aug. 25, 2014, pet . ref ’d
. ). After Gibson ’s petition for discretionary review was refused by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, mandate was issued by this Court on December 23 , 20 14 . Consequently, Gibson ’s felony convictions are final. Analysis The issues Gibson presents in his petition for writ of mandamus are issues that should have been raised in Gibson’s direct appeal or in a request for post - conviction habeas corpus relief. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.01 (West 2015 ) (writ of habeas corpus is remedy to be used when a person is restrained in his liberty); Ex parte Gray , 649 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (court must look to the substance of the relief sought, rather than its nomenclature or form). Courts of a ppeals have no jurisdiction over post - conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07, § 3 (West 2015 ); Ex parte Alexander , 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Because we have no jurisdiction over what is, in effect, a post - conviction habeas corpus proceeding, we dismiss Gibson ’s petition for writ of mandamus. 1 Mackey K. Hancock Justice

1 We note that it appears that Gibson has filed an application for post - conviction habeas corpus relief in January. However, this application was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without written order. See Ex parte Gibson , No. WR - 44,081 - 04 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2015).
19688

#### State v. Broniola

Affirmed
March 27, 1998

20453

#### Grant v. Leleo

Affirmed
# C_2021228EN.01000501.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — J.K. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach

(Case C-703/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Option for Member States to apply one or two reduced VAT rates to certain supplies of goods and services - Classification of a commercial activity as ‘provision of services’ - Annex III, point 12a - Implementing regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 6 - Concept of ‘restaurant and catering services’ - Meals ready for immediate consumption on the vendor’s premises or in a catering area - Meals ready for immediate consumption to be taken away)

(2021/C 228/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.K.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach

Intervening party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, read in conjunction with point 12a of Annex III to that directive and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 implementing Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘restaurant and catering services’ includes the supply of food accompanied by sufficient support services intended to enable the immediate consumption of that food by the end customer, which is a matter for the national court to determine. Where the end customer chooses not to benefit from the material and human resources made available by the taxable person to accompany the consumption of the food supplied, it must be concluded that no support services accompany the supply of that food.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                                   Washington, DC,
                                                    July 30, 2012.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Adrian Smith to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
#### Joseph Nestor et al., Respondents, v John P. Tilden, Ltd., Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on November 16, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Beatrice Shainswit, J., without costs. No opinion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
# C_2018427EN.01009902.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/99

---

Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T-597/18)

(2018/C 427/131)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint regarding the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).

The action is based on a single plea, namely that, contrary to the view taken by the Commission, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG represents new aid which is subject to an obligation of notification.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009082EN.01000702.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-224/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, V. Peere and H. Stølvbæk, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2018190EN.01003801.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

---

Action brought on 28 March 2018 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (BATTISTINO)

(Case T-221/18)

(2018/C 190/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark BATTISTINO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 070 313

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 402/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and consequently reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and consequently reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark at issue;

| — | order EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the two earlier sets of proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the two earlier sets of proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 64(2), 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 64(2), 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1113

To amend title 28, United States Code, to remand certain civil actions 
     transferred by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2015

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to remand certain civil actions 
     transferred by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

    Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``When'' and inserting ``(1) When''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Upon a motion of a plaintiff in a civil action described in 
paragraph (1), if the panel does not remand the action at or before the 
conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it 
was transferred before the date that is 5 years after the date on which 
the action is transferred--
            ``(A) the action shall be remanded to the district court 
        from which it was transferred; and
            ``(B) on remand, the district court shall set a schedule 
        for the time for completion of discovery and a trial date for 
        the action in accordance with chapter 23 and the civil justice 
        expense and delay reduction plan of the district court 
        implemented in accordance with that chapter.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any civil action 
pending in a transferee district court described in section 1407 of 
title 28, United States Code, on or after August 1, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019025EN.01005701.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/57

---

Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)

(Case T-685/18)

(2019/C 25/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL (La Hulpe, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SWIFT — Application for registration No 13 370 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 476/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---